The property is a two-storey
mid-terrace house. The application was for a proposed single storey rear extension, which would have had a
mono-pitch roof, sloping up towards the main house. This would have had height 2.4m along its rear elevation,
increasing to height 3.8m where it meets the rear wall of the main house.

The Council refused the
application on the basis that they “interpreted the eaves to mean the edge of a roof which also extends to the
highest part of the proposed pitched roof”, which appears to be a reference to the side edges of the mono-pitch
roof (i.e. the edges which rise from 2.4m to 3.8m). The Inspector noted that the Council had subsequently
reviewed their interpretation of that paragraph, and now agreed that the proposed development would be
lawful.

The Inspector agreed that the
proposed rear extension would be lawful, and stated that “the eaves are at the lowest part of the roof,
in this case 2.4 m high”.

Main
Conclusions:

·For an extension with a pitched
roof, the “eaves” of the extension are the lower end of the slope, and can not be taken to be the side
edges (i.e. verge) of the slope.[Relevant to: “Eaves”, A.1(g), E.1(e)].

Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):